THE LEPERS OF OBJECTIVISM

[dan_edge]

There was a question contained in my last post that I would like to see addressed by MSK, Pross, Engle, Branden, and those who share their views:

*If* targeting civilians were the best way to end a war quickly and cheaply, and *if* doing so were the best way to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens, *then* would you support it?

Yes or no?

This is a question to stand up and be counted for. I'm guessing that MSK, Pross, Engle, and Branden would all answer "no" to this question. Or more likely not give a straight answer at all. As would most Libertarians and most of the TOC crowd. The ARI speakers are the only ones with the moral courage to take the proper stance on this issue.

I am open to the argument that targeting civilians is not an effective military tactic in some specific contexts. I am not open to the argument that there are certain tactics we should take off the table in all contexts, in principle, even if they are the most effective means to protect *our* civilians.

MSK,

You say you do not count me among the lepers, but over and over you argue that anyone who takes my view is an advocate of genocide, takes pleasure in the deaths of little children, etc. This is exactly the kind of hostile, passive-aggressive method of argumentation that you have been chided for so often on other websites. I am not one of the "angry, militant" ARIans you hate so much, but I make no pretense about the fact that when I post here, I am in enemy territory.

--Dan Edge

[Victor Pross]

Dan,

I am not able to give a full answer as to the reasons for my protest right now, but I am fascinated by your question—your challenge even. A question: what historical precedent would you cite where the mass killing of unarmed citizens—women and children included—as being most “effective”?

Furthermore, I don’t believe that Biddle [and his diddle drones who would advocate and follow his example] are thinking in terms of “most effective way to win the war” but rather out of blind emotionalism—a kind of McCarthy like hysteria that ideas are spread like a cancer—are a cancer—and must be wiped out at ANY cost and NOW! That’s why he places a focus on educational establishments.

More later.

Victor

ps

I am not a libertarian

Edited October 5, 2006 by Victor Pross

[dan_edge]

Pross,

"A question: what historical precedent would you cite where the mass killing of unarmed citizens—women and children included—would you call as being most “effective”?"

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden, and Sherman's march through the South during the Civil War are good examples that have been cited recently. But that's not even the point here. The question is not whether or not you believe targeting civilians (to any degree) is an effective tactic in this or that context. The question is whether or not you would support it if were demonstrated to you that it *is* effective in a particular context.

You still didn't answer the question.

--Dan Edge

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

You asked:

*If* targeting civilians were the best way to end a war quickly and cheaply, and *if* doing so were the best way to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens, *then* would you support it?

Yes or no?

Yes.

I support what was done with Japan in WWII.

I have 2 contextual comments:

1. I presume you are referring to an actual war where the miliary forces of both countries are already engaged and not a frivolous decision.

2. I vastly prefer to remove economics and substitute your word "cheaply" with the phrase "without loss of American lives," but I am presuming this is an oversight by you.

Any more questions?

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Dan,

ARI or Biddle’s actual stand on this position is not irrelevant to this thread—that’s what begot this whole discussion. It is on THIS issue where I have posted my objection. I stand by what I have already stated about Biddle and my objection to him—regardless of what I think about WW11 and the bombings of so-and-so. What is the point of your question in the first place? I suppose you are very interested in the views of the people you addressed here—OR is your challenge meant to “shake up” the confidence of the stance taken in regards to Biddle?

Victor

Edited October 5, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For the record, let me repeat that Biddle's stance, as manifested in his own words, is contemptible.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

*If* targeting civilians were the best way to end a war quickly and cheaply, and *if* doing so were the best way to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens, *then* would you support it?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, Dan, but there is no proper way to answer this question since it is all theoretical and the premises questionable. There is no way to know that A and B could ever justify C and it's doubtful that real-life situations would help either. One can even argue that in WWII the various mass allied bombings were not targeting civilians but the cities they lived in. Maybe not successfully or very well, but one can argue this interminably.

The Mongol's once conquered a city in central asia and slaughtered its 1,000,000 inhabitants. Freedom had nothing to do with this war of conquest. Be we Mongols? Hitler slaughtered 6-7 million Jews. Again, this had nothing to do with freedom. Be we Nazis? The environmentalists by their war on DDT are responsible for upwards of 40 million infant malarial deaths and 500 million chronic malarial debilitations over the last +30 years. Nothing to do with freedom. Be we environmentalists?

If you are at war you are at war to survive. If you win you will presumably retain the freedoms you had. The deaths of civilians caused by you will not directly affect your freedoms one way or the other. Say you had a bomber with one big bomb to do this job. When you do this you will return to no more or less freedom than before.

So, it must be a matter of literal survival. The enemy has its terrible weapon that is going to destroy you hidden in the middle of its largest city. Your big bomb will destroy this terrible weapon but kill all the inhabitants of this city too. What to do? You destroy the city, but it wasn't the civilians who were targeted, it was the terrible weapon.

--Brant

Edited October 5, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Dan's question is one of those contextless types of question purposely loaded to trip people up. Then usually phrases are taken out of context and quoted elsewhere with meanings that were not intended.

He made the question as is and posted the whole thing on SLOP here.

I will be interested to see if he has the integrity to post my answer as is.

Michael

[dan_edge]

MSK,

"Any more questions?"

Yes.

1. In what context is it appropriate to specifically target civilians in war?

2. What is the essential difference between Shinto Japan during WWII and Islamic Iran present day?

3. Related question: Why do you believe that it was ethical to endorse attacks on Japanese civilians during WWII, but that one is advocating genocide to endorse the same tactics now against Iran?

4. Another related question: Under what circumstances would you advocate attacking the civilian population in Iran?

5. In the context of WWII Japan, would you have viciously denounced one who called for the bombing of Shinto temples and schools where soldiers were indoctrinated with the "kamikaze" suicide-loving mentality?

6. If “yes,” then why do you think it was ethical to destroy two large cities that did not have military significance, but is was not ethical to specifically target the Shinto schools? (To be clear, Biddle specified that he endorses bombing of massadrahs, which are universities, not elementary schools).

--Dan Edge

[zantonavitch]

I found Craig Biddle's August 31st article How to Solve Terrorism in 5 Easy Lessons absolutely thrilling to read. He really did get to the point and cut thru the nonsense with energy and vigor. That said, it was a blog entry, not a formal article, and thus, rather expectedly, somewhat loosely argued and worded.

But on the whole, and after rereading it, I think Biddle only advocates killing state leaders, not passive followers, and active Islamicists, not passive Islamics. The most ambiguous sentence in the piece is the one everyone cites, about wanting full mosques and madrassas to bomb. But he still may just be aiming for the head guys. If not, these massman pious folk can still be seen as self-selected "innocent civilians" who aren't really innocent in any Total War senario. Especially if America formally and publically declares war, as is proper. In the 2 or 3 blog posts, Biddle does not call for bombing large apartment complexes, nor huge factories, nor restaurants and clubs -- and certainly not full soccer stadiums. I think this reveals his thinking.

But if not, it doesn't really matter. What counts is: What is the morally correct position and the strategically wise one? And my interpretation of him seems to have it.

The best solution to today's War on (sincere) Islam is for Western states to openly declare war on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on, plus Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and all other active jihadist organizations, and those who fund and shelter them. These are dedicated murderers and enslavers, and so we should kill them where we find them. Anyone captured and left alive should get a quick but fair military trial based on transparent rule of law, usually followed by perhaps public execution.

We need victory here and there is great glee -- to use a term condemned by earlier posts -- in getting it. Biddle's blog posts seem pretty darn good to me.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Andre Zantonavitch

[dan_edge]

Dan,

ARI or Biddle’s actual stand on this position is not irrelevant to this thread—that’s what begot this whole discussion. It is on THIS issue where I have posted my objection. I stand by what I have already stated about Biddle and my objection to him—regardless of what I think about WW11 and the bombings of so-and-so. What is the point of your question in the first place? I suppose you are very interested in the views of the people you addressed here—OR is your challenge meant to “shake up” the confidence of the stance taken in regards to Biddle?

Victor

You stated earlier: "I am—and always will be—against the specific targeting of unarmed citizens, women and children and educational establishments. Or do I have this wrong? If that is what is being proposed at the end of the day, count me out."

When the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they were specifically targeting the civilian population. Those cities were not important military targets. The message that the US was trying to get across to Japan was that, if they did not surrender unconditionally, we would kill every last man woman and child on their island until they did. The message was received, and the war ended. Note that even though the Japanese were indoctrinated with the same suicidal mentality as the Islamists, there were no guerilla attacks in Japan after they surrendered, as has been the case in Iraq. Why do you think this was the case?

Though I do not necessarily agree with Biddle's recommendation of tactics (I am not a military expert), I do not in principle oppose it. I certainly do not think he is gleefully advocating genocide and the mass murder of children, as Branden says.

My earlier question was intended as a challenge, and you still haven't answered it.

--Dan Edge

Edited October 5, 2006 by dan_edge

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dan,

Proper discussion etiquette is for the questioner to provide the context for his question. But still, let's go.

1. In what context is it appropriate to specifically target civilians in war?

When military-to-military options are no longer effective.

2. What is the essential difference between Shinto Japan during WWII and Islamic Iran present day?

Culture, race, government, things like that.

3. Related question: Why do you believe that it was ethical to endorse attacks on Japanese civilians during WWII, but that one is advocating genocide to endorse the same tactics now against Iran?

I don't.

4. Another related question: Under what circumstances would you advocate attacking the civilian population in Iran?

Once war is declared, engaged and when military-to-military options are no longer effective.

5. In the context of WWII Japan, would you have viciously denounced one who called for the bombing of Shinto temples and schools where soldiers were indoctrinated with the "kamikaze" suicide-loving mentality?

Yes, if only ideas were taught there. No, if actual military preparation and operations were being performed.

6. If “yes,” then why do you think it was ethical to destroy two large cities that did not have military significance, but is was not ethical to specifically target the Shinto schools? (To be clear, Biddle specified that he endorses bombing of massadrahs, which are universities, not elementary schools).

I don't. Whoever said ethical? Once military-to-military options are out the window, so is morality.

Now do I get a chance to ask questions?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andre,

The objection to glee is glee in human slaughter and bloodshed, not glee in victory.

I want to write a rebuttal of your post, but... er... sorry, I just can't stop laughing.

Dayaamm!

You crack me up, dude!

Michael

[Martin Radwin]

There are actually three separate questions that are relevant to any discussion of the morality of going to war.

1) What is justifiable retaliation in a war of self-defense?

2) Is is justifiable to go to war for reasons other than self-defense?

3) Is the war an act of self-defense?

With regard to the first question, I think that the killing of innocent civilians is justified in a war of self-defense, although they should not specifically be targeted, and all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize the killing of innocent civilians.

With regard to the second question, I think that it is as a general rule justifiable to go to war only for reasons of self-defense. First, because the only legitimate role of government is the defense of its citizens, so engaging in a war for any other reason is an extension beyond its legitimate role. Second, because the killing of the enemy constitutes an act of aggression if not done for the reason of self-defense.

Objectivists generally strongly disagree with this perspective. They have argued that it is morally justifiable, although not in any way a duty, for a relatively free country to go to war with a dictatorship, since the dictatorial government has no legitimate claim to sovereignty. The problem with this position is that, while the dictatorial government has no legitimate claim to sovereignty and is, as far as I am concerned, even fair game for assassination, the same consideration does not apply to the people living under the dictatorship. In war, innocent people die. So while it may be perfectly justifiable to kill all the heads of state of a dictatorial government, this does not also make it okay so slaughter huge numbers of innocent civilians living under the dictatorship as well.

With regard to the third question, wars that clearly are not being fought in self-defense are often justified as being self-defensive wars. The Iraq war is a perfect example of this. The idea that Iraq was in any way a threat to the residents of the US, such that the US government had to go to war with Iraq to defend the nation against a possible Iraqi attack, either direct or indirect, is completely ridiculous. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tinpot dictator, but his government possessed neither the intent nor the capability of launching an attack against the United States, which just happens to be armed with a couple of thousand nuclear warheads that could turn most of the middle east into a glowing sheet of glass. Nor was there any evidence of intent or capability to launch an indirect attack, by the Iraqi government giving WMDs to terrorists, a scenario which was proposed by various members of the Bush administration without any basis whatever. So, 3000 US soldiers are dead, along with an estimated 50000 Iraqis, all for an optional war that never had any basis as self-defense. But it is still frequently justified as being a war of self-defense.

[L W HALL]

The best solution to today's War on (sincere) Islam is for Western states to openly declare war on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on, plus Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and all other active jihadist organizations, and those who fund and shelter them. These are dedicated murderers and enslavers, and so we should kill them where we find them. Anyone captured and left alive should get a quick but fair military trial based on transparent rule of law, usually followed by perhaps public execution.

And while we are at it I think we might as well go ahead and get rid of all the commies, socialists, TAS members, Scientologists, and don't forget those pesky magazine salespeople who keep showing up at my front door.

L W

[CNA]

*If* targeting civilians were the best way to end a war quickly and cheaply, and *if* doing so were the best way to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens, *then* would you support it?

To answer this question is a double edged sword. It's set up in a way to trap the one's responding. For one, there needs to be more context; the question needs to be broken down. This is similar to a compound question. Two questions posed as one question. No matter which way you answer it, it will only lead to confusion and misunderstandings.

I'm not here to debate as I do not have the time, especially now. I am only here to state my opinions and some observations with the question posed.

I'm wholeheartedly against targeting unarmed civilians, people that are innocent. These people may be against the war but are trapped in whatever country they are in. Context is everything. For me, I don't like the way the above question is phrased. It's a loaded question and designed to trick or trap the responder. I've seen this too many times in court by many attorneys trying to trap or discredit the witness.

Personally, I'm only taking into account the last part: "to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens” when is it justified to kill innocent civilivans? There is only one instance that I can think of where it would be justified in taking out or bombing the hell out of a country in an attempt to deflect a possible threat to our country and our freedom. If the war has progressed to the point where our country, our land was on the verge of being invaded, meaning the other country on our territory and has brought the war to our own backyard--then yes, our long term freedom is definitely threatened and immediate action is needed, then bomb the hell out of the country, strategically bombing whatever they can, do what is necessary to deflect the impending invasion onto our soil. That is the one time that I can think of where I would support taking out innocent civilians, both women and children and even other possible “John Galts” or others that are like Ayn Rand. But to take out whatever you can and to commit mass murder in another country where there is no threat to our long term freedom is downright horrifying and is despicable.

I would support it, as I said, especially if there was a *serious* threat to our long term survival. My freedom is more important than those that are strangers to me, people I do not even know, people that may very well be against me in some form or another. But this scenario would only be brought up if it was a full blown war and our men were dying and our long term freedom was *seriously* threatened—but strategically targeting certain areas at first. If this does not work, then yes, do not discriminate and bomb the hell out of the country, anything to deflect our own loss of innocent civilians, killings on our own soil, and our long term freedom possibly being taken from us. But strategic bombing at first--if that doesn't work, then bomb the hell out of the country.

Imagine having your freedoms taken from you, living under the rule of another psycho Hitler or Saddam. Hell no, you better believe I would support it if it came down to it and it was our only way of preserving our freedom.

Angie

[Brant Gaede]

Angie, Ayn Rand would agree with you. Me too. It's a matter of self esteem, so is freedom.

--Brant

Edited October 6, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Angie,

That was a wonderful response. Any 5 year old can understand it the way you put it.

You kept your answer tied to actual reality and values and you did not bite at the trap that was set (to "prove" that the person answering either is a hypocrite or is not patriotic or, in your words, a trap to discredit the person).

This is called conceptual thinking, with both cognitive and normative abstractions based solidly on reality.

Michael

[dan_edge]

*If* targeting civilians were the best way to end a war quickly and cheaply, and *if* doing so were the best way to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens, *then* would you support it?

To answer this question is a double edged sword. It's set up in a way to trap the one's responding. For one, there needs to be more context; the question needs to be broken down. This is similar to a compound question. Two questions posed as one question. No matter which way you answer it, it will only lead to confusion and misunderstandings.

...

I'm wholeheartedly against targeting unarmed civilians, people that are innocent. These people may be against the war but are trapped in whatever country they are in. Context is everything.

...

If the war has progressed to the point where our country, our land was on the verge of being invaded, meaning the other country on our territory and has brought the war to our own backyard--then yes, our long term freedom is definitely threatened and immediate action is needed, then bomb the hell out of the country, strategically bombing whatever they can, do what is necessary to deflect the impending invasion onto our soil.

...

Angie,

The question is not at all tricky; it’s meant to point out the fact that attacking non-combatants in war is not inherently immoral. What’s immoral and altruistic is refusing to use certain tactics in all contexts, even if they are effective is saving American lives. Attacking the enemy civilian population is a legitimate military tactic. The determining factor of whether or not it is a moral tactic to use is whether or not it is effective in ending a war. My point is that we can’t let our emotions run away with us and proclaim that killing civilians is always evil and that anyone who advocates it is an irrational advocate of genocide.

If you disagree with Biddle that now is not the time to use this particular tactic, that it wouldn’t be effective in ending the war for this or that reason, then that is a legitimate argument. But to argue that Biddle is wrong automatically because he advocates targeting civilians is not legitimate. To argue that Biddle is a genocidal baby-killer for his view is emotionalism run rampant.

Incidentally, when we dropped the bomb on Japan near at the end of WWII, the United States was certainly *not* “on the verge of being invaded.” By the standard you set, we should not have dropped the bomb. If we had invaded the island of Japan, many more American lives would be lost, but then we wouldn’t have had to kill all those civilians. If we had settled for a truce with Japan, something less than unconditional surrender, then we wouldn’t’ have had to kill all those civilians. So why did we do it, and why was it so effective?

This is another question you ought to ask your self, and one that that Branden, MSK, Pross, and others ought to be asking themselves.

One last point that the ARI speakers have made strongly, and that I agree with whole-heartedly: there can be no “proportionality” between individuals in an enemy aggressor nation and individuals in a free, defending nation. There is no calculus for how many Americans must die before it is appropriate to attack Iranian civilians. There is no rule for how many of theirs we can kill for each one of ours they kill. The only moral foundation for the calculus of war is this:

A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

This is the principle that my “trick” question brings to light. The question is only tricky to those who do not grasp the principle.

--Dan Edge

[Victor Pross]

“…That is the one time that I can think of where I would support taking out innocent civilians, both women and children and even other possible “John Galts” or others that are like Ayn Rand. But to take out whatever you can and to commit mass murder in another country where there is no threat to our long term freedom is downright horrifying and is despicable.”

KILL AYN RAND. Angie broaches the idea of killing an “Ayn Rand” and did so deliberately to be provocative—to put a human face on war. If you read that, and sat back in your seat saying 'Whoa' that's good. It’s so easy to blithely say “just kill them all”—whereever there are human beings—just kill em'--as if every individual where merely a fragment [if even that] from the rotten whole, a rotten collectivist horde that is not comprised of living and breathing human beings. It’s so easy to air-brush away a person’s individuality in order to issue a death command—or wish--from on top of the mountain as Biddle is doing along with the SLOP crew. Get down among some people in the group and get to know them. It is amazing that many so-called “objectivists” have lost the concept of free-will and individualism. It seems like their humanity is up for grabs, too. There's my emotionalism ringing off.

Victor

Edited October 6, 2006 by Victor Pross

[L W HALL]

Dan,

I continue to see you and others put forth the assertion that the surrender of Japan was brought about due to the targeting of civilians. How much have you actually studied this? Are you simply taking the word of others such as those with ARI that this is indeed factual?

Was Japanese surrender due primarily to the loss if civilian life, or was it a combination of Russia's declaration of war coupled with the scenario of the awesome might of atomic weaponry. A weaponry which could reduce the war making ability of Japan to nothing. I would ask that you keep in mind that at Okinawa it was widely reported that men killed their mothers, wives, and children to keep them out of American hands; we also know that Kamikaze pilots killed their ownselves, so the argument for the targeting of civilians in order to bring a culture vastly different from our own may not hold as much water as had been stipulated.

I would make a suggestion, and a suggestion only that you do some further research into the Japanese militaries reaction to the two atomic bombs. Although there is no doubt that the loss of life was staggering and influenced the decision making, it was not this fact alone as some would like to indicate that brought Japan to the point of unconditional surrender.

One other point, and that is regarding the continual citing of Sherman's targeting of civilians. This is again taken out of context due to the fact that although I view Sherman's actions as illegal and find him reprehensible, nonetheless he did not directly target civilians, but instead his focus was on materials and the means for waging war. This leaves the argument in support of the targeting of civilians for death in regards to Sherman's actions as useless in these discussions.

L W

Edited October 6, 2006 by L W HALL

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the "trick."

A defending nation has the right to do anything and everything it must to defend its citizens against attacks of an enemy aggressor nation.

This is the principle that my “trick” question brings to light. The question is only tricky to those who do not grasp the principle.

You leave out reason and values and you substitute one tribe for another. This is pure tribal thinking disguised as reason. Once people accept "do anything and everything" as a valid standard, all standards go out the window except for one: the good of the tribe.

Here is how an anti-concept is used to try to replace a legitimate concept:

... there can be no “proportionality” between individuals in an enemy aggressor nation and individuals in a free, defending nation. There is no calculus for how many Americans must die before it is appropriate to attack Iranian civilians. There is no rule for how many of theirs we can kill for each one of ours they kill.

The “proportionality” that is so necessary is not in terms of body counts. It is “moral proportionality.” It is in terms of correctly identifying who did what and how much, and responding by laying the blame squarely at the feet of the guilty, including bringing them to justice. It also includes not punishing the innocent where possible.

By trying to disguise “moral proportionality” with “proportionality” of body counts, the intent is to get you to abandon the idea of “proportionality” altogether. Thus you can equate a poor shopkeeper with a Hamas fanatic, for instance, in moral guilt and march happily toward genocide, since you see no difference between them.

This whole approach is to substitute military considerations for morality. Objectivist morality is based on reason (and ultimately individual human life) as fundament. It is not based on a tribe.

I am still wondering if Dan will agree to answer some questions, since he has been so generous in asking them.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael, [et al]

Philosophical discussions of the ethics of war can be very interesting and it is a worthwhile subject—for some other thread. Military logistics and strategies, too, is also a very interesting subject—for some other thread [mind you, aside from Brant, it would be a discussion conducted from an armchair].

As to the "ethics of war", there may very well be large agreement among the people who are now clashing.

I would like to turn this topic back to the issue of Biddle, what he advocates and in what manner it is being advocated.

Let’s set the context: Biddle is not a military strategist—so his dictates as to what, how, where and why to blast to hell could only come from his armchair murderously raging asshole. Who is this guy, anyway, to be calling for the type of horrific actions he is --as a first course of action in our current situation? Why this severe before less drastic actions are implemented? And done so by experts?

In a war of self-defense, one recognizes that the death of innocents is the inevitable by-product of war—and in some cases it is necessary—but one DOES NOT openly advocate the mass murder of innocents, as a specific course of action--military wise or in the name morality—as a first course of action, especially if that person is NOT a military strategist. THAT is my objection against Biddle and his ilk—not “war” per see.

Let’s re-visit Biddle’s position: Craig Biddle advocates taking out Iran by aerial bombing. He tacks on the following to the list of military and leadership targets: 'All Iranian mosques and madrassahs, and the residences of all Iranian...imams [and] clerics. Hit these targets when they are most likely to be occupied (e.g., mosques during the day and residences at night).'"

To quote Biddle further: …” we will be watching you from way up in the sky—higher even than Allah, by means of technology He cannot fathom—and if we see anything that we so much as feel might conceivably pose even a remote threat either to America or to our allies, we will annihilate it and everything in its proximity without further warning. "

Whoa...'we will be watching you!' Creep asshole. Who is this guy to advocate this—right out of the gate? The whole idea stinks of mad zealotry. Yes, it is a kind of genocide that's being advocated here. What makes it more appalling is that, unlike Hitler, Biddle defends genocide in the name of Objectivism. Let’s return this thread to what Biddle is all about.

**

Edited October 6, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Martin Radwin]

*If* targeting civilians were the best way to end a war quickly and cheaply, and *if* doing so were the best way to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens, *then* would you support it?

To answer this question is a double edged sword. It's set up in a way to trap the one's responding. For one, there needs to be more context; the question needs to be broken down. This is similar to a compound question. Two questions posed as one question. No matter which way you answer it, it will only lead to confusion and misunderstandings.

I'm not here to debate as I do not have the time, especially now. I am only here to state my opinions and some observations with the question posed.

I'm wholeheartedly against targeting unarmed civilians, people that are innocent. These people may be against the war but are trapped in whatever country they are in. Context is everything. For me, I don't like the way the above question is phrased. It's a loaded question and designed to trick or trap the responder. I've seen this too many times in court by many attorneys trying to trap or discredit the witness.

Personally, I'm only taking into account the last part: "to preserve the long term freedom of our country's citizens” when is it justified to kill innocent civilivans? There is only one instance that I can think of where it would be justified in taking out or bombing the hell out of a country in an attempt to deflect a possible threat to our country and our freedom. If the war has progressed to the point where our country, our land was on the verge of being invaded, meaning the other country on our territory and has brought the war to our own backyard--then yes, our long term freedom is definitely threatened and immediate action is needed, then bomb the hell out of the country, strategically bombing whatever they can, do what is necessary to deflect the impending invasion onto our soil. That is the one time that I can think of where I would support taking out innocent civilians, both women and children and even other possible “John Galts” or others that are like Ayn Rand. But to take out whatever you can and to commit mass murder in another country where there is no threat to our long term freedom is downright horrifying and is despicable.

I would support it, as I said, especially if there was a *serious* threat to our long term survival. My freedom is more important than those that are strangers to me, people I do not even know, people that may very well be against me in some form or another. But this scenario would only be brought up if it was a full blown war and our men were dying and our long term freedom was *seriously* threatened—but strategically targeting certain areas at first. If this does not work, then yes, do not discriminate and bomb the hell out of the country, anything to deflect our own loss of innocent civilians, killings on our own soil, and our long term freedom possibly being taken from us. But strategic bombing at first--if that doesn't work, then bomb the hell out of the country.

Imagine having your freedoms taken from you, living under the rule of another psycho Hitler or Saddam. Hell no, you better believe I would support it if it came down to it and it was our only way of preserving our freedom.

Angie

Excellent post, Angie!

So much of this debate has been about the question of what is morally justifiable in war. While this is certainly an important area for discussion, I have seen very little discussion on the question of when it is morally justifiable to go to war in the first place. To me, the only moral justification for going to war is self-defense. Yet the last war fought by the US that was arguably in self-defense was WW2. Since WW2, the US has been involved in a huge number of wars, not one of which has been a war of self-defense.

During the Vietnam war, the US killed about a million people, as well as helping to create conditions in Cambodia that led to the killing of about two million more people there. Yet who could reasonably argue that Vietnam was a threat to the US, such that the war could be justified as being fought in self-defense? Ayn Rand condemned the Vietnam war, but only because it did not serve the national interest of the US and was therefore altruistic. She never uttered a word about the morality of killing a million people in a country that never threatened and never was a threat to the US. ARI has likewise never said a word about the killing of foreigners by the US in wars fought since WW2, not one of which was a self-defensive war.

ARI and its fellow travelers scream about the horror of 9/11 and the 3000 innocent Americans killed that day. Yet they have no ethical problem at all about the million people killed by the US in Vietnam, or about the estimated 50000 people killed in another war not fought in self-defense, Iraq. When killing of innocents is done by Muslims, they are terrorists who must all be eradicated. When killing of much larger numbers of innocents is done by our own government, this is not terrorism at all but merely carrying out US foreign policy. The worst they can say about this is that it is altruistic, not that it is horribly wrong to slaughter innocent people in wars not involving self-defense. Apparently, by their ethical standards, some innocent victims are much more equal than others.

Martin

[Victor Pross]

Angie is not just another pretty face. B)